United states breakup: map suggestions



So I'm going to do a qbam map series on a usa that disintegrates in its early history, and this is a rough draft of what I have for 1812(ish). I'm personally debating whether the usa should exist here at all as a rump (labeled confederation congress) Any suggestions on how to make this more plausible would be greatly appreciated.
 
The exact borders of Pennsylvania, Maine and whatever happens in the Northwest Territory would be influenced by butterflies.

For instance, Maine's OTL border was the result of a compromise in 1842.


Pennsylvania's ownership of the Erie Triangle is dependent on exactly when the US breaks up ITTL. It's western boundaries - or that of the Continental Congress in this case - would probably be nebulous. IMO, claims to the Ohio Country would be likely.
 
Interesting, I am not sure that Vermont survives on its own. I get that the Mountain Boys are going to be difficult to contain, but according to what I can find, the population in 1790 was 85,425, which doesn't seem sufficient to survive independently. I'm also not entirely sure South Carolina survives separately from North Carolina. Yes, the population was about 250,000 people, so that's a decent number, most of whom came from the same place as the population of North Carolina.

I'd be really curious to know what your reasons for that are. However, despite that, a nice map which should kick off a fun discussion.
 
Interesting, I am not sure that Vermont survives on its own. I get that the Mountain Boys are going to be difficult to contain, but according to what I can find, the population in 1790 was 85,425, which doesn't seem sufficient to survive independently. I'm also not entirely sure South Carolina survives separately from North Carolina. Yes, the population was about 250,000 people, so that's a decent number, most of whom came from the same place as the population of North Carolina.

I'd be really curious to know what your reasons for that are. However, despite that, a nice map which should kick off a fun discussion.
I agree that SC is probably going to join someone, mostly because its hemmed in by other states and it's population (which, mind you, is by a slim majority enslaved) really has no where to go once the intensive cash crop farming of the OTL antebellum years starts exhausting the soil.

I don't think, however, they would join North Carolina. South Carolina began life as a colony of planters from Barbados and was a plantation colony to begin with and culturally has much more in common with Georgia, the only other Deep South country on the map. Georgia also has hung onto Alabama and Mississippi, which could allow for the small-holders displaced by the expansion of plantation agriculture to head west into good agricultural land without having to brave the middle of the Appalachian mountains.

On a completely different note, where do the Indian nations fit in here? The Cherokee are split between at least two different countries and Georgia is home to some significant Native nations as well. Without Federal troops, perhaps we'd see them become independent due to the much smaller population of soldiers in the divided states and a possible unwillingness to send troops outside official borders, even if to assist in a possible threat.
 
Interesting, I am not sure that Vermont survives on its own. I get that the Mountain Boys are going to be difficult to contain, but according to what I can find, the population in 1790 was 85,425, which doesn't seem sufficient to survive independently. I'm also not entirely sure South Carolina survives separately from North Carolina. Yes, the population was about 250,000 people, so that's a decent number, most of whom came from the same place as the population of North Carolina.

I'd be really curious to know what your reasons for that are. However, despite that, a nice map which should kick off a fun discussion.
In Vermonts case I was thinking that it and the other successor states are all dealing with their own fires to bother merging
 
So, is TTL going to go with a standard "United New England, Brought To You By The Federalist Papers(TM)"?

It would be interesting to see how each bloc/country's political systems differ from each other.

New England, for instance, might end up with a Canadian-ish government, possibly with a president appointed by the legislature.

Whilst the Federalists would be dominant in New England, I can't see them staying that way for too long. The Democratic-Republicans split eventually, after all.
 
So, is TTL going to go with a standard "United New England, Brought To You By The Federalist Papers(TM)"?

It would be interesting to see how each bloc/country's political systems differ from each other.

New England, for instance, might end up with a Canadian-ish government, possibly with a president appointed by the legislature.

Whilst the Federalists would be dominant in New England, I can't see them staying that way for too long. The Democratic-Republicans split eventually, after all.
Not forever, however in a situation like this the federalists would basically have a blank cheque when writing the constitution and creating the legislature
 
I agree that SC is probably going to join someone, mostly because its hemmed in by other states and it's population (which, mind you, is by a slim majority enslaved) really has no where to go once the intensive cash crop farming of the OTL antebellum years starts exhausting the soil.

I don't think, however, they would join North Carolina. South Carolina began life as a colony of planters from Barbados and was a plantation colony to begin with and culturally has much more in common with Georgia, the only other Deep South country on the map. Georgia also has hung onto Alabama and Mississippi, which could allow for the small-holders displaced by the expansion of plantation agriculture to head west into good agricultural land without having to brave the middle of the Appalachian mountains.

On a completely different note, where do the Indian nations fit in here? The Cherokee are split between at least two different countries and Georgia is home to some significant Native nations as well. Without Federal troops, perhaps we'd see them become independent due to the much smaller population of soldiers in the divided states and a possible unwillingness to send troops outside official borders, even if to assist in a possible threat.
Oh geez I completely forgot about the Cherokee and the other "Five Civilized Tribes". The trail of tears has been butterflied by hurricane force winds
 
"Federal Republic of New England" should actually be "(Federal) Commonwealth of New England" - the term "Commonwealth" also briefly surfaced in both New Hampshire and Vermont (even though Vermont is separate in that map),
 
The Native peoples are a factor that requires careful thought in this scenario, for sure their fate might well be quite different if the reservations and things like Oklahoma aren't founded or if the different successor states pursue different responses.

Perhaps South Carolina gets swallowed up by Georgia eventually then? I don't know, there are such a lot of black slaves there, might make forming a state impossible, to say nothing of the point made above about the lack of breadth in their economy. Total reliance on cash-crops does not a healthy economy grow.

We are presuming everybody remains on good terms with each other yes? Instead of border skirmishing? Vermont might survive as a buffer state between New York and New England both competing against each other, but it's tough to see other-wise as I have said. I'd actually think it more likely that one state consolidates and after a few years, conquers the whole thing to secure their position on the continent. Perhaps ethnic tensions or religious divisions between different majority and minority groups, such as Dissenters versus Anglicans versus Catholics become an issue? Pennslyvania probably has a lot of Anglicans and Dissenters, but will also rule over Catholics in Maryland. How does that work? Yes, they would expand along the Delaware Valley, but in a world where we have the US not being able to hold themselves together based on shared ideals, local culture becomes more important, if only to establish a shared culture over a settler culture. Balancing the interests of these two groups will be difficult. States, where there is a much higher population of German-born or Irish-born people, could end up acting out their homeland's biases and prejudices in each new country's relations with each other and having problems with states with people born mostly in England or Presbyterian Scots/Ulstermen. Let us all remember, this isn't relations between US States, this is relations between foreign nations now. All men are created equal only as long as you wish it to be so, they didn't exactly apply that principle universally did they?
 
Could, not neccesarily should
Well, I would think should (it's a term with some standing in the region, not to mention tying in with the Anglicization streak in Puritan linguistic usage, e.g. our boards of selectmen instead of municipal executives), but that's me. Also - a surviving Vermont would take in Western MA and northwestern CT, which has some attestation historically of proposals to do just that - not to mention making it a true buffer state between the rest of New England and New York State.
 
Well, I would think should (it's a term with some standing in the region, not to mention tying in with the Anglicization streak in Puritan linguistic usage, e.g. our boards of selectmen instead of municipal executives), but that's me. Also - a surviving Vermont would take in Western MA and northwestern CT, which has some attestation historically of proposals to do just that - not to mention making it a true buffer state between the rest of New England and New York State.
Linguistically, yes, that would make sense, however I had the idea that the new england federalists would try to create a "model republic" as an example as to how the USA should have functioned. Hence the different terminology. Vermont would likely only survive by being universally ignored due to the multiple crises caused by the breakdown of the union, I don't see the small rural territory gaining any land
 
An early breakup of the US would mean no independent Midwest. The Federal government negotiated with the eastern states to drop their western land claims and then parceled out the territory to private buyers. Without an economy that is closely linked to the East, the Midwest cannot exist as a viable country. Large portions of the Midwest would end up being controlled by Pennsylvania, or whoever controls that region ITTL, since most river and rail traffic came from there.

Separate sovereign nations in what is now the USA would also lead to more geographically determined borders as conflict begins to erupt. In the end, the continent would likely end up dominated by a single large state (most likely the Pennsylvania/Midwest country I mentioned earlier). Some of these states would not remain independent for long due to a lack of good ports and proximity to large neighbors.
 
Last edited:
An early breakup of the US would mean no independent Midwest. The Federal government negotiated with the eastern states to drop their western land claims and then parceled out the territory to private buyers. Without an economy that is closely linked to the East, the Midwest cannot exist as a viable country. Large portions of the Midwest would end up being controlled by Pennsylvania, or whoever controls that region ITTL, since most river and rail traffic came from there.

Separate sovereign nations in what is now the USA would also lead to more geographically determined borders as conflict begins to erupt. In the end, the continent would likely end up dominated by a single large state (most likely the Pennsylvania/Midwest country I mentioned earlier). Some of these states would not remain independent for long due to a lack of good ports and proximity to large neighbors.
The Ohio territory is occupied by British forces
 
Firstly, you need to establish exactly when the US breaks up.

Is it because they couldn't agree on a constitution? Did the, or at least a, constitution get ratified, but the US broke up anyway sometime later?
The general idea was that the usa does get a constitution, but it is significantly neutered compared to the constitution of OTL. The usa would disintegrate around the turn of the century
 
Linguistically, yes, that would make sense, however I had the idea that the new england federalists would try to create a "model republic" as an example as to how the USA should have functioned. Hence the different terminology.
In that case, no need to reinvent the wheel on terminology. A simple United States of New England would do just fine.

Vermont would likely only survive by being universally ignored due to the multiple crises caused by the breakdown of the union, I don't see the small rural territory gaining any land
I'm just thinking because:
>Vermont was originally called New Connecticut, reflecting the origins of the early colonizers (and not just the river at its eastern border)
>Culturally and geographically, Vermont, Western Mass. (especially in the Berkshires) and that part of CT are similar/identical
>If the US is breaking up early, than the East/West fault line in Massachusetts would be out in the open and would tear the state apart (not to mention rural discontent out there); so a breakdown of the US would lead to a breakdown in MA itself - and not just between Maine and the rest of the Commonwealth

So it could be possible. Vermont can't be universally ignored for long and would be shaped by conflicts going on around them.
 
Top